156
u/AndyceeIT 23h ago
One nice thing about working in IT/programming, is that our part of the process can be automated.
If management get huffy that production has ground to a halt because they can't review & approve fast enough... maybe they should be replaced by AI?
41
u/Shifter25 14h ago
That's why I've always found the drive to speed up software development to be silly. It's not the devs slowing things down, it's the people whose job entirely consists of attending meetings
1
u/Major_Fudgemuffin 54m ago
Take it from someone working for a company moving fast toward having AI write, review, and merge the code automatically: You don't want that.
They'll find a way to make it your problem no matter what.
41
u/klas-klattermus 20h ago
It's funny, like a jira issue can go from Chihuahua sized to beagle sized or even St Bernard sized because you ask business "no problem, just let me know the exact business logic around the feature so we don't mess up something critical"
40
u/Candid-Log6751 21h ago
One of the biggest questions in the old days was to find the real “inner customer”.
Now they just say “the company”.
It like the body is still doing its thing, but the brain was long gone.
25
u/KrakenMcCracken 20h ago
Set up an AI workflow to rubberstamp each step, of course you’ll have to approve each agent’s stamp, but you can use AI for that too
12
10
u/Ok_Intention_364 19h ago
This is exactly how the startup i am interning at is!!
12
u/Romanian_Breadlifts 14h ago
This is how the 100k+ person company I work for is, except you need three approvals spread across five different time zones, and one of the approvers is always out on a month-long holiday and has no backup
7
u/green_meklar 19h ago
No need to worry about your career. In the future, we'll all have jobs repeatedly clicking 'authenticate' on AI decisions.
8
3
u/Still_Bit_7527 18h ago
This is why I know I will never be replaced by AI. We are literally not allowed to automate
1
u/XtraFlaminHotMachida 12h ago
hey man, we got an ISO accreditation so we gotta follow the rules of ensuring that the tool has been properly validated.
1
1
u/LetReasonRing 54m ago
Reminds me of when I was asked to do a quote for a lighting control system for the wayfinding signs at an NFL stadium.
We had several ways it could be controlled... direct ethernet connection, wifi, infrared remote control, and physical buttons on each device.
They refused ethernet because running the wires would be too expensive, they refused wireless because of the potential for interference, and they refused buttons and IR remotes because someone would have to walk to each sign.
So, I was supposed to give them a system they could control remotely without using wired, wireless, or manual control.
Unfortunately we lost the job because our telekinetic control system was still under debrief.
1
1
u/Flat_Initial_1823 14h ago
2 months later: "pls set up delegation so the CEO's PA can approve/deny all the tickets on time"
-8
u/GrinningPariah 18h ago
The only manual approval step should be code review. Everything else can be handled with unit tests, integration tests, and automated deployment windows.
If all that isn't keeping you safe, you don't need more manual approval, you need to fix the approval steps you already have.
7
u/Particular-Yak-1984 17h ago
Never sure this is a sensible real world take, at least if you don't own all the processes. For example, I write software that interacts with hospital systems - and we do some manual data checking, because doctors are lawless as anything, and put comments about patients in random fields. We don't own the other systems enough to stop them.
We set up tests each time we find one, but there's always going to be some manual elements to review of a new feature.
250
u/GNoob69 23h ago
That’s when you roll out LGTM as a service
yes LGTM | ./script_that_needs_approval.sh